1- Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2- Pediatric Neurorehabilitation Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3- Department of Biostatistics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract: (855 Views)

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the behavioral problems and abilities of 7-12-year-old students with a physical/motor disability at mainstream and special schools. Methods: The data in this comparative (cross sectional-analytic) study were collected using total population sampling, A sample of 247 students with a physical/motor disability including 153 students (67 females and 86 males) at special schools and 94 students (41 females and 53 males) at mainstream schools participated in this study. Data were collected using the Teacher and Parents versions of the child’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Each version includes five aspects, namely, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder, peer relationship problems for measuring behavioral problems and the Prosocial Behaviors Questionnaire for estimating behavioral skills. Data analysis was performed using non-parametric Man-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.Results: Students with a physical/motor disability studying at mainstream schools significantly differed from those studying at special schools in terms of behavioral problems (P<0.05). The obtained mean scores revealed that the students’ behavioral problems were less frequent at mainstream schools and more common at special schools. Based on teachers’ viewpoints, there was a significant difference in behavioral skills among students with a physical/motor disability at mainstream and special schools. However, according to parents, there was no significant difference in behavioral skills between students at both schools. Discussion: Our data demonstrate that behavioral problems of students with a physical/motor disability are fewer in mainstream schools indicating stronger behavior skills than their peers in special schools. In view of our data, we recommend the possibility of integrating the education of special needs students at regular schools.

6. Sartawi A, AlMuhairy O, Abdat R. Behavioral problems among students with disabilities in United Arab Emirates. International Journal for Research in Education. 2011; 29:1-5.

7. Dababneh KA. The socio-emotional behavioural problems of children with cerebral palsy according to their parents' perspectives. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 2013; 18(2):85-104. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2012.655443 [DOI:10.1080/02673843.2012.655443]

8. Jones SE, Lollar DJ. Relationship between physical disabilities or long-term health problems and health risk behaviors or conditions among US high school students. Journal of School Health. 2008; 78(5):252–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00297.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00297.x]

15. Qu X. Understanding special school provision for children with severe learning difficulties in relation to inclusive education. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal. 2015; 1(2):78-98.

28. Wiener J, Tardif CY. Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special education placement make a difference. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 2004; 19(1):20–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00086.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00086.x]

30. Karsten S, Peetsma T, Roeleveld J, Vergeer M. The Dutch policy of integration put to the test: differences in academic and psychosocial development of pupils in special and mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2001; 16(3):193–205. doi: 10.1080/08856250110074364 [DOI:10.1080/08856250110074364]

31. Buckley S, Bird G, Sacks B, Archer T. A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 2006; 9(3):54–67. doi: 10.3104/reports.295 [DOI:10.3104/reports.295]